1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Austrian Economist, Robert Murphy on the Debt Ceiling

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by DA60, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-51rFiljBo"]‪Austrian Economist, Robert Murphy on the Debt Ceiling‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
     
  2. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    27,190
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says be real suspicious o' dem politicians - dey's sneaky...
    :fart:
    Beware the debt ceiling vote
    July 21, 2011: The stock plunge on Sept. 29, 2008, when the first bank bailout bill was voted down, is a reminder of a risk lawmakers take if they push debt ceiling vote to the last minute.
    See also:

    Debt ceiling talks aim at $3 trillion in cuts
    July 21, 2011: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is continuing to pursue the most "significant deficit reduction package possible," his spokesman said Thursday, the latest indication officials are keeping a variety of options open while trying to hammer out an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling and avoid an unprecedented default.
     
  3. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    27,190
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says somebody gonna take it to the Supreme Court an' dem activist judges gonna muck it all up...
    :fart:
    Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Can Obama raise the debt limit by himself?
    July 31, 2011 WASHINGTON, July 31 (UPI) -- The dance of raising the U.S. debt limit has gone on for weeks, with President Obama and Republicans circling each other like Sharks and Jets. But can the president use the Constitution to raise the debt limit by himself to avoid economic disaster?
     
  4. jwhitesj

    jwhitesj New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. P. Lotor

    P. Lotor Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    6,700
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What's wrong with Austrian economics?
     
  6. jwhitesj

    jwhitesj New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Economics is a science. Austrian economics does not pass the riggors of the scientific method. Rather than using mathematics to test their theoreis, they use verbal arguments that can not be tested. Some of their leaders even reject the use of using imperical evidence which is fundamental to the scientific method.
     
  7. Joe Six-pack

    Joe Six-pack Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,898
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But it's not an "exact" science, is it? It attempts to build predictive models of human behavior in the market. But people are erratic and unpredictable sometimes. So even if an economic model appears sound, with graphs and formulas, it's still just a best guess. It's like saying psychology is a "science." Social-science is really pseudo-science.

    Accounting is an exact science, predicting gambling outcomes is not.
     
  8. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly.

    And that is where the aforementioned 'scientific' style of economics all falls down...it tries to put emotional humans and their emotionally based buying/saving practices into neat little boxes.

    If emotions did not play a part in economics - then no one would ever buy faster/bigger/sexier cars or put crown mouldings/granite counter tops in their houses or go out to restaurants for fun or buy expensive clothes or so on. They would all drive practical cars and live in small, cookie cutter condos and never dine out and always wear basic clothes.

    That is usually why people get SO much into debt - they want more then they can afford; so they live beyond their means to satisfy emotional cravings.

    Why do these people think that no one has ever been able to come up with a scientific model to consistently predict how the stock market will do?
    Because the stock market runs on emotion - not science.

    As does the economy.
     
  9. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,046
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What these economists fail to understand is that the dollar is backed by government debt! (around half the collateral assets held by the federal reserve are treasury bonds/notes)
    Unless the Treasury actually decides to print its own currency (rather than Federal Reserve notes), it is impossible to pay down the current debt by just printing more money. the Treasury is prevented by law, at least in theory, from printing orders of federal reserve notes unless the federal reserve holds collateral assets to back it
     
  10. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Economics isn't about predicting markets, it is about analyzing data and reacting with policy measures to counteract or influence market decisions. We know things, like when velocity of money drops and people save more, there will be less income. So to counteract this, they do things like cut taxes, give tax rebates, stimulus spending, etc... to get more money in to the economy to bridge the gap between spending/saving.

    Economics is more reactionary than anything else. And to say that policy can not influence market decisions means that you do not even care about any facts other than pushing your anti-Govt rhetoric.

    No one will ever be able to come up with a perfect model for the stock market or any other market, because markets are still driven by fundamentals of supply and demand. No economist ever argues otherwise.
     
  11. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is that why almost every economist completely missed the housing bust and I pegged it right by liquidating my portfolio in August '07 and selling my investment properties before the bust began? All on predicting markets?

    And how Peter Schiff wrote 'Crash Proof' years years before the crash and described it quite accurately? Or how Marc Faber and Jim Rogers called it pretty close as well?
    Where EXACTLY did I say that 'policy can not influence market decisions'?

    LOL.

    If you do not realize how absolutely nonsensical that statement is - then you are not nearly as intelligent as you claim to be.



    Have a nice day.
     
  12. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who cares. Great job!!

    Peter Schiff was right about one thing wrong about everything else. Great job. If we listened to Peter Schiff's advice after the collapse we would be bankrupt right now. Just because you predict one thing right doesn't make you an economist.

    I just regurgitate what economists are taught in school. I guess you know better, lol!!
     
  13. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The real problem with Austrian economics is that it lacks the empirical evidence to outright refute Old Keynesian/Monetarist theories. The New Keynesian, New Classical, and behavioral economic fields may be able to bring greater empirical analysis to Austrian theories, therefore, leading to a synthesis of the field never seen before. However, at this point, the contributions of Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, etc. will remain out of the mainstream.
     
  14. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You said that 'Economics isn't about predicting markets'.

    And my experiences, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers proved that statement wrong.

    It's not only about predicting markets - true. But to be successful at economics - one must have the ability to predict, imo.


    No offense, but I know better then to claim to be intelligent and so well taught (as I seem to recall you claiming to be) and then say something like:

    'No economist ever argues otherwise'

    To speak for every economist on the planet and to say they will NEVER do something is totally and completely unprovable.

    Not very scientific or logical.

    Just sayin'...


    Have a nice day.
     
  15. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean like the evidence that from mid 1933 to mid 1942 - under Keynesian economics for almost all of that time - the U.S. unemployment rate averaged over 18% and the DOW actually went DOWN all while the national debt skyrocketed.


    But the 1920/21 Depression was handled with a balancing of the budget by a massive reduction in spending and the government basically staying out of the way of the economy - which resulted in it recovering to near pre-depression levels in both unemployment and the DOW within 3 1/2 years....all while reducing the national debt.


    Those are the two largest 20'th century recessions/depressions in America and they were handled in two totally different manners with two totally different results.

    I would say that is pretty fair 'empirical evidence'.

    Not perfect of course...but not bad, imo.
     
  16. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I will actually have to look at the empirical evidence first before drawing to conclusions. The economics behind old Keynesian economic policies is that fiscal and monetary policy can shift aggregate demand. Unfortunately, most Keynesian policies are best suited for the short-run. In the long-run, the economy is self-correcting. Even Keynes himself recognized this. Old Keynesian/Monetarist economists believe that the self-correction process takes too long. As Keynes stated, "in the long-run, we are all dead." This is the reason why the evolution of old Keynesian/Monetarist policies has taken the role of active stabilization policy.

    In addition, the 1920/1921 depression was not necessarily an Austrian style recovery. There was certainly a Laissez-Faire approach to the economic crisis. Once again, I will have to look at the numbers to see the empirical comparison of this downturn to the Great Depression.
     
  17. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry for not providing the numbers here.

    But I have done it SO MANY TIMES that I am a little sick of it.

    And you seem the resourceful type, so...;)
     
  18. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is an interesting YouTube video that was just now posted by the guy who I posted in the opening post.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyUNdzLwte4"]Robert Murphy Responds to Reddit Ask Me Anything - YouTube[/ame]
     
  19. akphidelt2007

    akphidelt2007 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    19,979
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No one in the educated world of economics considers Austrians to be economists. They are philosophers... basically story tellers. Listen to educated people, not idiots in tin foil hats!
     
  20. DA60

    DA60 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There you go again...speaking for people you cannot possibly know.

    A little sincere advice.

    You are not an idiot...but you discredit your message when you make blanket statements that you cannot possibly know or prove.

    I don't doubt that most 'economists' or 'economist wannabe's' running around schools or similar have little respect for Austrian Schoolers (which - for various reasons - makes me even more certain Austrian School is right and Keynesianism is wrong, btw).

    But there is NO WAY you, me or anyone else can know what they ALL think.
     

Share This Page